Although I must ask... how is this related to what I said about MBTI?
I guess I just don't see how to use something in such a vague manner. Perhaps it is more useful in that way, to others, but I honestly just don't know how you feel you can see what something is if it isn't clearly defined, or contradicts itself in places. How am I supposed to get this "picture" if I can't even see a remotely reasonable number of consistent qualities between people of the same type? If there isn't something consistent about these qualities showing up that I can respond to, how do I recognize anything at all about it's relationship to this idea?All a type is supposed to be is a rough guide to how people act, think and reason. It's not supposed to be exhaustive or precise. It does help though to understand that some people are ENFPs and others are INTJs not so you can regurgitate the title or any of the preferences but so that you know where you can be blunt, where you need to be sensitive, whether to take that last point made as a personal insult or just a brutally delivered "hint".
If language is only 20% of communication then how complex is communication and why can it not be all encapsulated precisely into words without making a book about it (ie too unwieldly to refer to as a guide whilst navigating other issues)?
I suppose you'd have to take the ideas in MBTI at face value, but then not try to modify or sharpen your understanding of those ideas over time or via experience because that would make it too complex/specific, and thus applicable only to a smaller number of people. If I could somehow do this, I would have to hold the idea in mind without changing it or trying to apply it to specific behaviors (as I'm inclined to do). Then, observe people over time in various situations to see which trends existed in their behavior (without paying too much attention to what the individual behaviors were), find which ones matched most closely to those ideas/categories (which aren't being extended or changed at all) and then "force-fit" the pattern to one or the other, neglecting all the things that didn't fit, while having and developing no clear standard for what counts as an example of that pattern, force-fitting developing trends into that pattern without really knowing what it is or what it means, continually.
This may be useful to some people, agreed, but I would have a hard time with this. It's difficult for me to see trends unless I'm looking for them and keeping track of them, then it's difficult to figure the "weight" of each thing that contributes to a trend, and I really hate the part where I discard everything that doesn't fit with the pattern and am expected to react to something very general that may not be the actual situation, just because it's the closest fit to a predefined pattern that I can't be sure is applicable or related to the situation at all.
Do you think this sort of processing comes easier to yourself than it would to someone like me, perhaps? I can see how it's possible, it just sounds mentally intensive, possibly time-consuming (it takes time to see trends and it can't be done on first meeting someone or with little data), and comes with a high risk of misinterpretation that could only be resolved by continuing that process and hoping the normalized pattern begins to reflect reality more closely over time.
If that's anything close to how you approach life, I wonder how you can stand it... you must be either incredibly gifted or incredibly crazy to be able to make something like that work.